“playwrite.” It may seem sensible to you, modern-looking and
unpretentious. Let me suggest, though, that there’s a good argument for staying old-fashioned.
In the dictionary, “wright” is defined as “constructive worker.” In earlier times the term was applied to those people who wrote plays. This was because they not only wrote the script, but also directed, designed, acted, and produced. In short, they constructed the entire event.
But the metaphor holds even today, if for a different reason. A play is wrought more than written. A playwright constructs a play as a
wheelwright once constructed a wheel: a general shape is laid out, and then hammered, bent, nailed, re-shaped, hammered again and again, until finally a functional and artful product has emerged.
The writing of a play involves just such a rough, practical, lusty attack on the material. After all, a wheel is only a wheel once it’s a wheel. Until then, it’s something that resembles a wheel
(Spencer, 2002, pp. ix-x) My response to the dramaturgical reports as discussed above is largely practical and considered. One thing I have not talked about is how the individual styles of the report affected me.A1 took an ordered, academic approach. While I found this a little stiff, the points were clearly made, suggestions were largely practical and the
coverage was wide ranging. I felt some of my intentions had been
misunderstood and I was slightly offended by the mention of a couple of basic points. For example, the report said it was “better not to dictate stage positions eg left, right, centre” (A1). My stage directions are actually very sparse, and the sort of positioning directions indicated are only given rarely, at points where I thought there may be some confusion for the reader about the use of the space. While I found A1’s feedback generally valuable and while I liked the ordered approach, if I was to enter into a dramaturgical relationship with this person I would need to be aware of the potential for me to take offence at blunt criticisms. I would need to develop strategies to deal with my response, so that it did not become an issue. I would also need to remember that it is up to the playwright to decide on which comments he or she will focus. With so many valuable ideas offered by A1, I would not do
68
myself any favours if I directed my focus onto the few thoughts with which I had an issue. If I resolved these minor but important problems, I can see the potential for developing a positive working relationship with this dramaturg, and I would receive valuable guidance on structure.
A2 provided a response that read like a stream of consciousness response.
It was creative, exciting and inspiring. It made negative points but these were interspersed with questions and positive responses. It was probing. It did not focus so strongly on specific moments in the script, but took a fairly general approach, looking at the overall effect of the play. It made me want to tackle the script again, immediately. While I feel I would need to have a strong awareness of where the script was flagging and direct this
dramaturg’s focus to specific areas of concern, I am confident that I could work constructively with A2.
My responses to the dramaturgical reports are subjective. Both of my dramaturgs are excellent and highly regarded practitioners. Every playwright is different and every playwright must find a dramaturg with whom he or she can develop a way of working effectively. If the playwright can see the value of a particular dramaturg’s response to his or her work and can recognize the areas of the playwright/dramaturg relationship that may need to be worked on in order to facilitate the development of a positive working relationship, then the potential for the relationship to be a valuable one is enhanced. Most importantly, the playwright must find the dramaturg who most inspires him or her to keep writing.
In keeping with the previous statement, I will give the final proclamation for this chapter to Chekhov, who gave the following dramaturgical advice in a letter to Maxim Gorky, Feb 15 1900:
Write, write, write! It is necessary. Even should the play fail, don’t let that
discourage you. A failure will soon be forgotten, but a success, however
slight, may be of vast service to the theatre
(Chekov, 1960, p. 27).69 CHAPTER SIX
In Good Company
“The composer left some really precise instructions, but the great thing about notated music is that there’s always this wonderful wiggle room – and that’s where we live, in the wiggle room.” (Litson, 2010, p. 23)
In the quotation above, David Robertson, an American conductor, is talking about a performance of Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony. The term “wiggle room” also provides an apt description for the space in which a theatrical production of a play can find its points of difference with another theatrical production of the same play. It is within the “wiggle room” space that a company explores the design and interpretation of a text, seeking in every corner for the best interpretation that the collective expertise of the artists in the room can bring to the production, the best way to make this play speak to an audience. In the “wiggle room” – which can prove to be quite an expansive room – the company becomes involved in the dramaturgy of the play.
Everybody involved in a production - from the writer to the lighting designer to the set designer to the stage manager to the costume designer to the director to the actor – to the audience - contributes to the dramaturgy of a production.
Then why do we need a dedicated dramaturg within a theatre company?
A clue to a partial answer to this question lies in the title of an article by Christine Wahl. The article is entitled: “Dramaturges: The Multitaskers”
(Wahl, 2009).
Throughout Europe and America, the dramaturg attached to a professional theatre company can be called upon to handle a range of jobs. They can be involved in play selection, in casting, in researching the background of a writer or a play, or in researching past productions or the social/political
70
influences which the play reflects. They could be asked to provide program notes, educational packages, facilitate public forums, or help an actor decipher the meaning of a piece of text. They might be called upon to translate a play, to adapt a book for the theatre, to work with a writer on structure or to help a director reinterpret an extant script. They could also be asked to assess scripts sent to the company for consideration, to
research current national and international playwrights or to sit in on the rehearsal process to provide any background information required and to act as an in-house critic (Cardullo, 2000, pp. 3-5). The tasks of a dramaturg in America and many parts of Europe are largely ordered according to the company’s needs, but the function of dramaturgy is clearly multi-layered.
Having a knowledgeable multi-tasker on hand in this time-hungry world must be seen as a boon.
Of course, as discussed in chapter two, in Germany the company dramaturg has a much more powerful position within the company structure, with the main company dramaturg acting effectively as an executive producer.
German dramaturgs are also a guiding force within the rehearsal room and sometimes write scripts. In some other parts of Europe, and in America and Australia, the role of company dramaturg is usually created as a support to the artistic director. The sort of support the artistic director requires is often reflected in the title given: dramaturg, literary manager, associate director, literary officer, production dramaturg and so on.
The production dramaturg is one who assists in the rehearsal room. The very fact that all those involved in the production are involved in
dramaturgy makes it desirable that a dramaturg is on hand – especially for the production of a new play – to ensure the playwright’s intentions and the director’s vision work together to jointly illuminate the play. This can be a delicate task. Some re-writing may be called for. The dramaturg needs to facilitate that re-writing, and to ensure that neither the script nor the needs of the producing company are compromised in the process. Cattaneo
describes the task thus:
71